Development and validation of social entrepreneurship career decisions scale among higher education students

Abstract

Purpose

The importance of sustainable development has become increasingly significant in today’s fast-paced world. The 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) aim to solve a range of environmental, economic and social challenges, which requires global collaboration among governments and private organisations. In light of this, social entrepreneurship has garnered significant attention as it combines the social purpose of non-profits with the market-driven approach of for-profits to address SDG goals. Yet the cognitive processes underpinning the career decisions of social entrepreneurs remain underexplored. This study aims to develop and validate a scale to measure social entrepreneurial career decisions based on the appraisal of perceived challenges.

Design/methodology/approach

The study followed the steps of tool development and was carried out in three phases: item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Findings

The final 20-item scale focuses on the appraisal components in pre-entry social entrepreneurial career decision-making and has four factors, which are relevance, coping potential, knowledge and resources and normative significance.

Research limitations/implications

The study contributes to the literature on entrepreneurial cognition, specifically focusing on social entrepreneurship. The scale could guide model testing and quantitative research in social entrepreneurial cognition. The four-dimensional structure identified in the study may also have implications for researchers interested in the antecedents and effects of social entrepreneurial decision-making.

Practical implications

Accurate measurement of cognitive appraisal is necessary to understand the perceived challenges and thought processes of potential social entrepreneurs. The scale could be used to examine the cognitive appraisal patterns among students. Social entrepreneurship educators and policymakers can use the scale to design and assess educational programs.

Originality/value

Distinct from existing studies, this scale offers a multidimensional approach that captures the stages of career decision-making, providing a robust tool to enhance our understanding of the decision-making dynamics in social entrepreneurship.

Citation

Viswanath, P. and Kumar, A. (2024), "Development and validation of social entrepreneurship career decisions scale among higher education students", Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 375-400. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-12-2023-0253

Introduction

Entrepreneurship was usually considered an economic activity. But recently, the focus of research has shifted to social and sustainable entrepreneurship. These entrepreneurship activities adopt a triple-bottom-line approach, where the mission is to create an economic, social and environmental impact (Shahid, 2022). However, these added responsibilities increase the challenges of creating and managing social enterprises. Such challenges often discourage potential individuals from pursuing social entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship research has mostly focused on post-entrepreneurial decision-making. It is equally important to examine the factors that influence intention formation and pre-entrepreneurial decision-making (Krueger and Welpe, 2014). However, the intention-behaviour link in entrepreneurship is often uncertain and indirect (Mei et al., 2022). The complexity and unpredictability of entrepreneurship lead to a divergence between what people intend to do and what they actually do. Literature has predominantly centred on profiling entrepreneurs based on demographic and psychographic factors. Studies should also emphasise identifying common cognitive and decision-making processes to gain a more comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurship (Pech and Cameron, 2006). However, the findings from cognitive entrepreneurship literature still need to be conclusive. This study responds to the call for more empirical research on entrepreneurial cognition. To meet this objective, the cognitive appraisal perspective is adopted. The cognitive appraisal can provide a valuable framework for researching social entrepreneurial cognition. As the importance of entrepreneurial cognition grows, it becomes increasingly important to measure the cognitive processes involved in entrepreneurship accurately.

Studies conducted in social entrepreneurship research have widely used qualitative methods. Quantitative deductive approaches are notably less. To triangulate and generalise the findings, more quantitative research is needed. However, one of the challenges in conducting quantitative research in this field is the lack of established and standardised instruments for assessing social entrepreneurial constructs. The previous literature review indicates the need for psychometrically validated scales in social entrepreneurship research. Three of the existing scales measure either social entrepreneurial intention or orientation (Kraus et al., 2017; Satar and Natasha, 2019; Tran, 2018). Another scale by Hockerts (2015) measures antecedents of social entrepreneurial intention such as empathy, moral obligation, self-efficacy and perceived social support. Additionally, Capella-Peris et al. (2020) developed a scale to measure social entrepreneurial competencies such as confidence, goal-oriented motivation, risk-taking abilities, learning and evolving and creativity, cooperation, social awareness, coexistence and respect for public affairs, resilience, responsibility, commitment and coherence, ability to create ideas, social awareness, ability to learn and evolve, leadership, initiative, ability to change, social networks, ability to identify opportunities and creativity. There is a lack of scales to measure the career decision-making process and challenge appraisal in social entrepreneurship. The career decision-making scale developed in this study addresses this need by measuring the perceived challenges in social entrepreneurship and how individuals make career decisions based on their assessment of these challenges. Thus the present study aims to develop and validate a social entrepreneurial career decisions scale with the cognitive appraisal of perceived challenges as lower-order constructs.

Previous studies mostly measure social entrepreneurial processes from a trait approach (Walter and Heinrichs, 2015). This study moves beyond the trait perspectives and develops a scale to measure the cognitive factors that explain social entrepreneurial career decisions. Measuring cognitive appraisal allows us to understand social entrepreneurial activities from a cognitive, affective and intentional perspective. By measuring cognitive appraisal, we can gain insight into how certain individuals perceive challenges as opportunities and appraise them positively. It helps to understand how they perceive social entrepreneurship as a desirable and feasible career and how they act based on their thoughts and emotions (Walter and Heinrichs, 2015).

The scale is developed among higher education students who are at a transitional phase in their lives and actively engaged in making career decisions. The absence of tailored tools and guidance in educational settings increases the difficulties students face in recognising opportunities, appraising the significance of their choices and accessing the necessary knowledge and resources for a meaningful career in social entrepreneurship. Specifically, there is a deficit in resources addressing the unique appraisal components involved in pre-entry social entrepreneurial career decision-making. This leaves students without a structured framework to navigate this crucial phase, hindering their ability to make informed decisions and limiting the choice of social entrepreneurship as their professional identity. It is important to address the various challenges related to the perception of social entrepreneurship as a viable career. This is crucial for developing a generation of socially responsible and empowered individuals, which in turn contributes to the growth of the field and encourages a more socially conscious and innovative society. By using the scale developed in this study, researchers can better understand the perceptions and decision-making processes of potential social entrepreneurs and support them in their journey towards creating impactful ventures. The findings of this study can help in the development of complementary learning techniques that could encourage more students to consider social entrepreneurship as a career option.

Literature review

A fundamental aspect of entrepreneurship involves a new entry, whether it’s introducing a new product, a new market or a new organisation. However, novelty can create several challenges for entrepreneurs. Thus, strategic decision-making is essential to optimise the benefits and mitigate the challenges before new entry. This process includes evaluating one’s abilities to procure resources, acquire market and technological knowledge, estimate market demand, identify windows of opportunity, leverage competitive advantage and overcome demand uncertainty (Hisrich et al., 2013). Central to this process is entrepreneurial cognition. Entrepreneurs must possess a cognitive map that enables them to assess not only the potential success of the business but also the balance between risks and returns (Mitchell et al., 2004). The complex relationship between cognitive processes and strategic decision-making has been widely studied in entrepreneurship. However, the literature on entrepreneurial cognition and new-entry decision-making is relatively limited. Understanding how potential entrepreneurs perceive and interpret the challenges and opportunities associated with new entry is important. It helps to identify the factors that influence their decisions and behaviours.

Entrepreneurial cognition

Entrepreneurial cognition refers to the knowledge structures people use to make judgments or decisions regarding opportunity evaluation and venture creation (Mitchell et al., 2004; Saeed et al., 2018). The judgments depend on an individual’s knowledge, abilities, attitude and norms. Entrepreneurial cognition plays a significant role in creating a positive perception of entrepreneurial activity, eventually leading to venture creation (Saeed et al., 2018).

Unlike personality studies, entrepreneurial cognition focuses on the role of perception, which is a person-centred and process-centred approach. Thus, it explains what an entrepreneur does rather than who they are. Studies on entrepreneurial cognition have established the significance of entrepreneurial thinking, opportunity recognition, strategic decision-making and the interplay of internal and external factors in the perception of reality (Elfving, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2002).

The decision to become an entrepreneur is complex and influenced by numerous factors. Individuals use their cognition to assess their abilities to perform entrepreneurial tasks and roles and choose whether or not to pursue an entrepreneurial career (Kallas and Parts, 2020). Both poor risk assessment and inflated assessment of personal capabilities can hinder its outcomes (Pech and Cameron, 2006). A failure to understand the challenges of entrepreneurship and biases in cognitive processes can make entrepreneurial transitions difficult. Faulty cognitive patterns such as counterfactual thinking, comparison with competitors, emotional overreaction, impatience, mistaken customer priorities, overestimation, overconfidence, planning fallacies and the illusion of control can lead to premature scaling (Mitchell et al., 2002; Walter and Heinrichs, 2015).

To understand entrepreneurial behaviours, it is necessary to have a deeper understanding of entrepreneurial thinking and feeling (Krueger and Welpe, 2014; Virick et al., 2015). This requires the development of profound theories and methods that can accurately describe and analyse complex cognitive and emotional processes (Krueger, 2007). Such objectives can be achieved by adopting a multidisciplinary perspective, using tools from cognitive sciences (Mitchell et al., 2002).

Theoretical framework

One of the popular approaches in entrepreneurship research is the assessment of entrepreneurial intention using social psychological models. Two models are widely used in research: the entrepreneurial event model and the theory of planned behaviour.

Shapero and Sokol (1982) developed the entrepreneurial event model that focuses on the factors influencing entrepreneurial intention and decision-making. The two key components in their framework are perceived desirability and feasibility. Perceived desirability refers to an individual’s perceived attractiveness of entrepreneurship as a career. Perceived feasibility is their perception of having sufficient skills to be an entrepreneur (Pergelova et al., 2023). The entrepreneurial event model resembles the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1991). TPB includes three determinants of intention:

1. Attitude;

2. Perceived behaviour control; and

3. Subjective norms.

Entrepreneurial attitude refers to the positive or negative evaluation of becoming an entrepreneur (Galanakis and Giourka, 2017). Perceived behaviour control indicates the extent of control an individual has over managing a business. It is influenced by entrepreneurial munificence (conducive environment) and domain-relevant knowledge (Jarvis, 2016). The TPB also gives importance to the role of subjective norms in entrepreneurial intention formation. The positive and encouraging attitude of significant others facilitates the acquisition of knowledge, resources and capital for the venture (Santos and Liguori, 2020). Such favourable conditions result in an optimistic approach towards the anticipated outcomes of entrepreneurial activities. Overall, the TPB components have a strong influence over the entrepreneurial intentions and desires of individuals (Jarvis, 2016). The TPB assumes that human behaviour originates from a logical decision-making process, where individuals weigh the advantages and disadvantages of potential outcomes linked to different behavioural choices (Doan et al., 2021). This process involves assessing the anticipated consequences of various options before deciding.

While existing models provide valuable insights into social entrepreneurial career decisions, they are not exhaustive. A more comprehensive model is needed that explains the decision-making process not just in terms of intent but in terms of informed intent, where it is understood as a reciprocal rather than linear process (Virick et al., 2015). Thus, this study attempts to understand social entrepreneurship career decisions from a cognitive appraisal perspective.

A cognitive appraisal model for social entrepreneurship

Cognitive appraisal evaluates an event’s relevance to values, well-being and emotions (Akkawanitcha et al., 2015). It is the process by which individuals interpret the significance of a stressful event in their lives (Virick et al., 2015). It is not the situation that determines an individual’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, but rather their cognitive appraisal of the situation (Boz Semerci, 2022). Some individuals perceive stressful events as an opportunity for personal growth. They appraise the event as challenge-related, not hindrance-related (Zhu et al., 2017). Challenge-related stress produces a positive appraisal of the event, while hindrance-related stress results in a negative appraisal (LePine et al., 2004; Zhu et al., 2017). It is not the event itself that determines an individual’s emotional response but rather their cognitive appraisal of the situation. By understanding how individuals interpret and evaluate events, cognitive appraisal theorists explain how people can have different emotional reactions to the same situation (Yarwood, 2022).

One of the popular models developed for cognitive appraisal is the component process model (CPM; Scherer, 2001). According to CPM, an individual’s emotional response to an event is determined by their evaluation of the event and its consequences. This evaluation is carried out using a set of criteria and involves multiple levels of processing. CPM explains appraisal based on four components:

1. Relevance;

2. Implications;

3. Coping potential; and

4. Normative significance.

Relevance is the assessment of how relevant and impactful the event is Scherer (2009), Yarwood (2022). The relevance of an event is determined based on its novelty, pleasantness and goal significance. Novelty is evaluated based on the event’s abrupt onset, familiarity and predictability. Novelty, uncertainty and the complex nature of entrepreneurship restrain individuals from entrepreneurial behaviour (Chen et al., 2023; Mitchell et al., 2002). Additionally, a positive appraisal of goal significance increases the orientation and alertness towards the event (Baierl et al., 2014; Scherer, 2009).

Implication is the evaluation of the consequences of an event and how it affects one’s well-being and goals (Scherer, 2009). Implications are assessed based on outcome probability, urgency and goal conduciveness. When individuals fear failure, they are more likely to appraise the probability of a successful outcome negatively. In such situations, they may perceive entrepreneurial activities as threats rather than opportunities (Chen et al., 2023). They may also fear the potential risks associated with financial, psychological and career consequences (Ukil and Jenkins, 2023). As a result, their intention to pursue entrepreneurship may decrease.

Coping Potential is the appraisal of one’s ability to cope with the consequences of an event (Scherer, 2009). It includes agent and intention, control, power and adjustment. If individuals believe they have the necessary knowledge and skills to become entrepreneurs, it can increase their sense of competence and foster a positive attitude towards the entrepreneurial environment (Kallas and Parts, 2020). If an individual determines that they do not have the knowledge or resources to manage an enterprise, then they must decide whether or not they can adjust to the outcomes (Yarwood, 2022). A positive appraisal of one’s ability to adjust to challenges can increase ambidexterity, which is the cognitive ability to adapt flexibly to unanticipated circumstances (Boz Semerci, 2022). The higher the coping potential, the higher the perceived capability of individuals to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour. The higher perceived capability would motivate them to work hard for entrepreneurial goals and persevere in challenging times (Chen et al., 2023).

Normative significance is the evaluation of whether the event is compatible with internal and external standards. Internal standards include self-concept and individual values. External standards include perceived social norms and standards or pressures from significant others (Yarwood, 2022). Social norms, values and beliefs can influence entrepreneurial behaviour and choices by providing a framework for what is acceptable and desirable (Chen et al., 2023). While entrepreneurship research has substantially focused on the role of legal, regulatory, environmental, technological and demographic factors in new venture creation, the influence of family support should be given more attention (Meek, 2010). The influence of peer relationships has received even less attention. Emotional support from family, friends and other caring relationships can facilitate positive appraisal in the entrepreneurial process (Zhu et al., 2017). If these significant others have a favourable view of entrepreneurship, they may be more willing to contribute financial and other resources to support the creation of a new venture. Parent and peer support are thus determining factors of intention and probability of becoming entrepreneurs.

Cognitive appraisal and social entrepreneurship career decision-making

Most studies in the field of social entrepreneurial decision-making focus on identifying the major competencies. García-González and Ramírez-Montoya (2023) conducted a study to explore the factors and processes that influence the development of social entrepreneurial competency (SEC) among university students from various disciplines. Key findings suggest that students’ intrinsic motivation to address problems plays a crucial role in their engagement in social entrepreneurship, regardless of their academic discipline. The development of SEC was associated with themes such as the importance of immersion in projects, awareness of the target population’s needs and the identification of problems and opportunities for social innovation. Students highlighted the value of soft skills like teamwork, leadership and communication and administrative abilities. The significance of connecting with external organisations, including governmental and non-governmental bodies, was emphasised as a means to strengthen projects. The process of idea validation, the formation of an entrepreneurial identity, the necessity of disciplinary knowledge (e.g. accounting, law, economics) and the importance of perseverance through challenges were also identified as key components. The study differentiated social entrepreneurship from philanthropy, focusing on economic sustainability and community empowerment. It emphasised the advantages of project-based learning and the university’s role in supporting social entrepreneurship, often through non-academic departments. The research stressed the importance of problem delimitation, continuous iterative processes in entrepreneurial activities and the need for effective communication to promote entrepreneurship opportunities within the university setting. Similarly, Rojas et al. (2024) identified 14 key social entrepreneurial competencies among higher education students. These competencies include a focus on achievement, the ability to work effectively as part of a team, a proactive approach to taking initiative, strong financial management skills, the capability to identify and capitalise on opportunities, creative thinking, the ability to develop others, a strong network, an interest in building relationships, the ability to lead a team, a clear sense of mission and purpose, the capacity to influence others, a persistent nature and a deep commitment to helping and serving others.

However, measuring competencies is fundamentally different from measuring the appraisal of perceived challenges. While competencies focus on the abilities and skills that individuals possess or develop to perform specific tasks effectively, the appraisal of perceived challenges involves assessing individuals’ perceptions and reactions to obstacles or difficulties they encounter. This distinction highlights the importance of not only cultivating and evaluating essential competencies for social entrepreneurship but also understanding how aspiring social entrepreneurs perceive and navigate challenges, as both elements are crucial to their success and development in the field.

Keleş Tayşir et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive study to identify and address the obstacles hindering the formation of social ventures. The study outlines several barriers, including a lack of management experience, insufficient networks, low confidence and self-efficacy, attachment to unviable ideas, challenges in team motivation and recruitment, financial and resource constraints, inadequate planning, mismatched products/services, misaligned priorities, complex business models, difficulties in measuring and monetising social value, regulatory issues and an unsupportive ecosystem. To counter these challenges, the study suggests increasing social impact investment, establishing supportive legal frameworks, offering government incentives, enhancing social entrepreneurship education and providing financial support. Additionally, fostering networking, finance management and market research skills, boosting support organisations and incubation centres and promoting awareness of potential challenges are recommended as viable solutions.

The study by Keleş Tayşir et al. (2024) aligns with broader research on the cognitive processes involved in appraising perceived challenges and making social entrepreneurial decisions. Researchers have generally identified that entrepreneurs engage in extensive and complex cognitive appraisals of career challenges (Krueger and Welpe, 2014; Krueger and Grichnik, 2009). Researchers have debated whether the appraisal of perceived challenges is similar among commercial and social entrepreneurs. Some findings indicate that appraisal in social entrepreneurship involves more emotional thinking or hot cognition, while commercial entrepreneurial opportunities are often perceived from a rational perspective or through cold cognition (Krueger and Welpe, 2014; Krueger and Grichnik, 2009). Thus, it is important to understand the cognitive appraisal processes of social and commercial entrepreneurs separately. However, studies that examine cognitive appraisal and its role in social entrepreneurial career decision-making are considerably fewer (Baierl et al., 2014; Michl et al., 2009; Virick et al., 2015). A study was previously conducted by the researcher on the cognitive appraisal processes those social entrepreneurs use to make informed decisions during their entrepreneurial journey (Viswanath and Reddy, 2023). The study identified four main themes:

1. Appropriateness;

2. Implications;

3. Coping potential; and

4. Normative significance.

Appropriateness is determined by factors such as unfamiliarity, unpredictability, pleasantness, goal significance, unacceptability and viability. Implications include the likelihood of success, goal conduciveness and job security. Coping potential is determined by factors such as controllability, adjustment, knowledge and resources and competition. Normative significance is determined by internal and external standards. Based on the findings, the study proposes a cognitive model for the appraisal of social entrepreneurship. Aspiring social entrepreneurs can benefit from understanding the evaluation components of appraisal to determine whether social entrepreneurship is an appropriate career path for them. However, the study focuses on the cognitive appraisal processes of active social entrepreneurs. The present study shifts the focus towards aspiring entrepreneurs, specifically higher education students. There currently exists a lack of validated tools tailored to understanding the pre-entry decision-making processes of potential social entrepreneurs. Our findings aim to bridge this gap by developing and validating a social entrepreneurship career decisions scale using the framework of cognitive appraisal.

Method

Sample

The data was collected from higher education students across India. The total sample size comprised 845 participants, collected at three phases during the scale development process. Specifically, 300 participants were recruited for item analysis 1, an additional 300 for item analysis 2 and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and 245 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The data was collected using a purposive sampling method, as participants were selected based on their academic or volunteering background in social entrepreneurship or community development. This approach ensured that students with relevant experience and expertise were included in the study, thereby enhancing the validity and applicability of the findings to the target population. Demographic characteristics of each sample set are mentioned along with the results of each step of the scale development process.

Inclusion criteria

• Higher education students across India with an academic or volunteering background in social entrepreneurship or community development.

• Students (aged between 18 and 25) enrolled for undergraduate or postgraduate courses.

Exclusion criteria

• Students who do not provide informed consent to participate in the study.

• Students who do not have sufficient English language proficiency.

• Students with health or psychological concerns.

Data collection procedure

Before beginning the data collection process, the researchers obtained ethical approval from their institutional review board. Additionally, all ethical considerations, such as obtaining informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, privacy and voluntary participation, were taken into account to ensure the safety of the participants. Data was collected by distributing questionnaires to participants and through Google Forms. The recruitment date ranged from November 2022 to June 2023. The participants were identified through faculty members at various higher education institutions across India that provide academic courses on social entrepreneurship. Students volunteering in various social enterprises were identified through the website or stakeholders of respective enterprises. The data was collected from multiple educational institutions and enterprises across various states in India. The sample included a wide spectrum of students engaged in social entrepreneurship either academically or as a volunteer. The students came from diverse educational backgrounds, including both undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Given the geographical and demographic breadth covered by the recruitment strategy, along with the inclusion of participants from various disciplines and educational levels, we believe the sample adequately reflects the population of higher education students engaged in social entrepreneurship activities. Therefore, while acknowledging the inherent limitations of any sample, the comprehensive recruitment approach provides a solid base for considering sample as representative of a larger population.

Data analysis

Prior to data analysis, the pilot testing of the scale was performed on the initial sample of 10 students. The feedback received from the students was positive and satisfactory, indicating that the items on the scale are easy to understand and that the scale has face validity. The development of scale was carried out in a stepwise manner, beginning with item analysis to evaluate item difficulty and discrimination. Item difficulty was computed using mean scores, whereas item discrimination was computed using item-total correlation (ITC) and point biserial correlation (r_pb). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the dimensionality of the scale. Principal components analysis (PCA) and direct oblimin rotation were used to extract the factors based on factor loadings and Eigenvalues.

After the factors were extracted, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to validate the factor structure. The partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach was used for CFA. PLS-SEM can handle complex data and is predictive, making it appropriate for testing constructs with less empirical or theoretical evidence. PLS-SEM is preferred over CB-SEM when assessing non-normal data and is less conservative in assumptions than CB-SEM. The first step in CFA was to verify the factor loadings of each item. Subsequently, multicollinearity was assessed using variation inflation statistics (VIF). The psychometric properties were analysed, and reliability was assessed based on the composite reliability (CR) value. Convergent validity was established using the average variance extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was determined using the Fornell and Larcker criterion, cross-loadings and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. Finally, the model fitness was evaluated based on the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) value.

Item generation

The initial item pool was developed based on a literature review and interviews previously conducted by the researcher (Viswanath and Reddy, 2023). Initially, the literature on cognitive appraisal and challenges in social entrepreneurship was reviewed. The review helped to identify the research gap, existing scales and theoretical background of cognitive appraisal. Based on the understanding from the literature, two interview schedules were prepared for both established social entrepreneurs and students with academic or volunteering background in social entrepreneurship, who are the target population of the developed scale. The total sample size was 28, consisting of 13 social entrepreneurs and 15 students. Our aim was not to develop any theoretical models from the interview data, but to obtain diverse perspectives on the construct and ensure comprehensiveness and relevance of the items included in the scale. The diversity of the sample helped us identify key themes relevant to social entrepreneurship in a broad context and specifically to aspiring students. The selected sample of 28 participants provided sufficient data, and no new insights or themes emerged after data saturation was achieved. The themes and sub-themes were identified based on the findings from both interviews to facilitate item generation. The themes were similar to the component process model; relevance, implications, coping potential and normative significance. The sub-themes included both existing and newly emerged themes. Relevance included pleasantness, unfamiliarity, unpredictability, unacceptability, goal significance and viability. Implications included the likelihood of success, goal conduciveness and job security. Coping potential included controllability, adjustment, knowledge, resources and competition. Finally, normative significance included internal and external standards (Viswanath and Reddy, 2023). Based on these themes, the initial item pool was developed with 100 items, measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree).

Expert validation

Four experts, including academicians and practitioners in social entrepreneurship, reviewed the initial item pool to eliminate researcher bias. The two academicians are highly qualified professors in social entrepreneurship at well-known universities in India. They have extensive experience conducting workshops and training programs for students on social entrepreneurship, giving them insight into the challenges and decision-making processes students face. One of the professors also runs a social enterprise, providing them with academic and practical knowledge in the field. Additionally, two social entrepreneurs were approached for feedback on the relevance of this scale concerning the current concerns and challenges in social entrepreneurship. One of them runs an angel investment company, giving them a deeper understanding of the decision-making processes in the pre-entry and initial phases of venturing. In contrast, the other runs an agribusiness and has many student interns working under them, giving them insights into the perceived challenges among students. All of the experts have over 12 years of experience in academia and social entrepreneurship and were able to bring valuable insight to the review process. The expert validation forms included a brief description of the study and the constructs for which the items were developed. The experts were asked to verify whether the items accurately measured the underlying constructs. To facilitate the validation process, three options were given corresponding to each item:

1. Can the item be selected for the final scale;

2. Whether it needs to be modified before being included in the final scale; and

3. Whether the item should be deleted from the final scale.

The experts were asked to choose the appropriate option for each item and provide suggestions for modification and reasons for rejecting items. They were also asked to review the clarity of items and the response format of the scale. This step helped with establishing the content and face validity of the scale. Based on the feedback from the four experts, significant modifications were made to the initial item pool of the scale. The experts’ suggestions led to the refinement of several items to better align them with the underlying constructs they were intended to measure. Items deemed not accurately reflecting the constructs were either revised or eliminated. For items that required modification, experts provided specific suggestions on how to rephrase or adjust them to enhance clarity and relevance. This process resulted in rewording some items to eliminate ambiguity and improve understandability. Additionally, certain items were removed from the scale entirely because they were redundant with other items or because they did not sufficiently capture aspects of social entrepreneurship relevant to the study’s focus. This careful review and revision process, guided by expert feedback, ultimately reduced the number of items on the scale from its initial count to 88. These changes were implemented to ensure that the scale accurately measures the constructs of interest and is sensitive to the current concerns and challenges in social entrepreneurship, thereby enhancing its validity and reliability for future research.

Results

Phase 1 – item analysis

The first phase in scale development is item analysis, which examines item difficulty and discrimination. Item discrimination is examined using item-total correlation (ITC) and point biserial correlation (r_pb), with both values above 0.3. However, when the item analysis was performed on the first sample (n = 300), the results were not satisfactory. Only 25 items had ITC above 0.3. Items with ITC below 0.25 were removed from the scale. Items with ITC above 0.25 were modified with the feedback of an expert in cognitive psychology. The modified scale had 41 items. Using the modified scale, item analysis was performed using a new data set (n = 300). Items 5, 6, 7, 11, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 39 were discarded, as the ITC values were showing insufficient item discrimination. The correlation values for the remaining items were above 0.3, indicating that item discrimination is satisfactory. The revised scale after item analysis had 28 items. Table 1 shows the summary of the item analysis.

Phase 2 – exploratory factor analysis

The scale’s dimensionality was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The EFA was conducted on a sample of 300 participants. The sample included 143 males and 157 females. There were 232 students from business and management disciplines, 56 from social sciences and 12 from arts and humanities. Among the students, 260 have an academic background in social entrepreneurship and 45 have experience in volunteering activities. The data was analysed using SPSS-29 software.

Before extracting the factors, the factorability and sampling adequacy were examined using Bartlett’s test of sphericity and Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) value. The data was found to have significant sphericity (= 2742.52, p < 0.000) and a KMO value of 0.84. This was followed by factor rotation, performed using the principal components analysis (PCA) and direct oblimin rotation. Initially, the items were examined for communality. All items have a communality value above 0.5. Then, factors were extracted based on the factor loadings (> 0.5) and the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue of 1). The EFA generated six factors for the scale. However, factor 5 was removed because the items were not theoretically appropriate. Factor 6 was removed because only two items were loaded into it, and only factors with at least three loaded items were chosen for the final scale. Thus, two factors were removed, resulting in a four-factor structure. Based on the removed factors and cross-loading of certain items into more than one factor, items 4, 12, 21 and 28 were removed from the scale. Items 31 and 41 were also removed because they did not load under any factors. Thus, four factors with 22 items were retained for the final scale. Table 2 shows the summary of EFA results.

Phase 3 – confirmatory factor analysis

CFA was performed using partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Data was collected from 245 students. The participants consisted of 89 males and 156 females, all aged 18 and 23. There were 154 students from business and management disciplines, 68 from social sciences and 23 from arts and humanities. Among the students, 201 had an academic background in SE and 161 had experience with volunteering. The data was analysed using the SmartPLS 24 software.

Based on EFA, 22 items were chosen across four factors to confirm the factor structure and assess the psychometric properties.

Factor loadings.

The first step in CFA is the assessment of factor loadings, with a cut-off value above 0.708 (Hair et al., 2019). All items had loadings above the threshold value except for two items with values between 0.5 and 0.6. Those two items were removed from the scale (items 5 and 10). Thus the final scale has 20 items in total. The factor loadings are presented in Table 3.

The first factor is labelled as “relevance”, with eight items measuring pleasantness, familiarity, acceptability, goal significance and viability. The second factor is “coping potential”, with four items measuring controllability and adjustment. The third factor is “knowledge and resources”, with four items measuring entrepreneurial competencies. The fourth factor is labelled as “normative significance”, with four items measuring internal and external standards. Table 4 provides the final scale with indicators and explanation.

The following paragraph provides a demonstration of the application of the scale on a college student as an example. The participant was a 20-year-old female pursuing her final year of a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts, with an elective course in social entrepreneurship. She was selected as she represents the target population on which this scale is standardised. The purpose of this demonstration is to illustrate how to administer the scale and interpret the results. Firstly, the participant was introduced to the study and informed about the purpose of completing the questionnaire. Prior to answering the questionnaire, they had to sign in the informed consent form and fill the socio-demographic sheet. The participant was provided with an overview of the questionnaire and was instructed to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each statement or question based on their own attitudes and beliefs. Each item of the scale was presented to the participant, and they were asked to respond using the provided response options. The response format of the scale was five-point Likert scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Once the administration was over, the participant’s responses to each item of the scale was compiled to obtain their overall score on the scale. Because the response format of the scale is a five-point Likert scale, the responses range from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” These responses were assigned numerical values, for example, 1 for “strongly disagree” and 5 for “strongly agree.” To calculate the overall score on the scale, each item’s response was tallied according to its assigned numerical value. The scale included four sub-scales to measure social entrepreneurship career decision-making process:

1. Relevance;

2. Coping potential;

3. Knowledge and resources; and

4. Normative significance.

The participant’s scores on all four sub-scales were summed to obtain their total score on the scale. This total score was then used to interpret the participant’s position regarding their appraisal of perceived challenges in social entrepreneurship. A higher total score suggests a more positive appraisal of perceived challenges in choosing social entrepreneurship as a career. This means the participant views these challenges more positively, which could indicate a stronger inclination or readiness towards a career in social entrepreneurship. Conversely, a lower score would imply a less positive appraisal of the challenges, possibly indicating hesitancy or concerns about pursuing a career in this field.

Indicator multicollinearity.

The multicollinearity of the items is measured using the variance inflation statistic (VIF), with a cut-off value below 5. All items had VIF below 5, indicating that multicollinearity issues do not exist. Table 5 shows the VIF values for all items. Moreover, the scale does not have common method bias as all the VIF values were below the threshold value of 3.3. Additionally, the differences in standardised regression weights were below 0.2 confirming that common method bias is not present.

Analysis of psychometric properties.

The next step is to measure the psychometric properties of the scale. The scale is reliable if the composite reliability (CR) value is above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019). All four factors had CR values above 0.5, indicating that the reliability of the scale is satisfactory. Moreover, the total internal consistency of the scale was also satisfactory (r = 0.94).

Construct validity is examined based on convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is measured using the average variance extracted (AVE) value, with a cut-off value above 0.5. The AVE value of all factors was above 0.5. The discriminant validity of a scale is measured using different methods. The Fornell and Larcker criterion, cross-loadings and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio are three methods used to determine the discriminant validity of a scale. According to the Fornell and Larcker criterion, a scale has adequate discriminant validity if the square root of each construct’s Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is greater than its correlation with other constructs (Hair et al., 2019). Cross-loadings can also be used to determine discriminant validity. If an item’s factor loading is strongest in its corresponding factor compared to others, the scale possesses discriminant validity. Finally, the HTMT ratio can be used to determine discriminant validity. The scale holds adequate discriminant validity if the HTMT ratio is below 0.9 (Hair et al., 2019). The results indicated that the scale meets all these criteria. Hence, the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale is satisfactory.

Table 6 shows the correlation with CR, AVE and Fornell–Larcker criterion. Table 7 shows the HTMT ratios.

Additionally, the discriminant validity of the scale was examined with the social entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SESE) scale (Tran, 2018) to ensure that career decision-making differs from self-efficacy. The square root of AVE within the scales was greater than the correlation between the social entrepreneurship career decisions (SECD) and SESE scales, satisfying the Fornell–Larcker criteria. Table 8 shows the square root of AVE within and between the scales. Moreover, the HTMT value between the two scales was 0.554. Thus the discriminant validity between the scales was satisfactory.

Model fit indices.

Unlike CB-SEM, PLS-SEM does not include global indices of the model fitness as it mainly estimates how close the observed values are to the predicted values of the dependent variables. However, PLS-SEM does include the Standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) as a measure of model fitness, which should be below 0.1 or 0.08 in more conservative terms (Kante et al., 2018). The SRMR value for this scale was 0.08. Thus, the model has an appropriate goodness of fit. Table 9 shows the index of model fitness.

Discussion

The present study aimed to develop and validate a scale to measure social entrepreneurial career pursuit with the cognitive appraisal of perceived challenges as lower-order constructs. The exploratory and confirmatory analysis resulted in a four-factor, 20-item scale, with a higher score indicating a higher positive appraisal of perceived challenges.

The first factor in the scale is relevance, which includes the appraisal of a social entrepreneurship career based on pleasantness, familiarity, acceptability, goal significance and viability. Researchers have identified the significance of positive appraisal of relevance as a determinant of entrepreneurial career decision-making (Chen et al., 2023; Mitchell et al., 2002). However, becoming a social entrepreneur requires a unique set of skills and knowledge, and many people may have difficulty adapting to this career path. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate job satisfaction and the working environment to ensure that individuals can adapt to the demands of the job (Nawi et al., 2022). Moreover, evaluating social entrepreneurship opportunities involves assessing various factors that are crucial in determining their viability (Thompson et al., 2017). This includes evaluating the social problem being addressed, market acceptability, consumer and stakeholder awareness, timeliness, sustainability in the market and how significant it is to the entrepreneur in terms of personal goals (Viswanath and Reddy, 2023). It is necessary to evaluate these opportunities comprehensively to align with personal goals and the needs of society. Additionally, the appraisal of relevance considers challenges related to an event, such as severity, predictability, ambiguity and controllability, which are significant subthemes. These challenges can be internal or external and can impact an individual’s decision on pursuing a social entrepreneurship career.

The second factor is coping potential, which includes the appraisal of a social entrepreneurship career based on controllability and adjustment. Coping potential increases cognitive flexibility and adaptation to unforeseen challenges (Boz Semerci, 2022). The concept of coping potential includes a wide range of attributes that contribute to an individual’s ability to cope with a given situation effectively. According to Boz Semerci (2022), individuals with a higher coping potential are more likely to have greater cognitive flexibility and adaptability to unforeseen challenges. This factor is particularly important in social entrepreneurship, where individuals regularly face unexpected challenges and must adapt to changing circumstances to achieve their goals. Scherer (2009) suggests that after understanding the characteristics and outcomes of an event, individuals assess their ability to cope with anticipated consequences. In the context of social entrepreneurship, individuals need to evaluate their capability to control and adapt to the specific demands of social entrepreneurship. This evaluation enables them to determine whether they have the necessary skills to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour effectively. Moreover, a positive appraisal of one’s ability to adjust to challenges can enhance ambidexterity, which is the cognitive ability to adapt flexibly to unanticipated circumstances (Boz Semerci, 2022). When individuals have a higher coping potential, they are more likely to have a higher perceived capability to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour. This perceived capability motivates them to work hard for entrepreneurial goals and persevere in challenging times (Chen et al., 2023). In conclusion, the concept of coping potential is essential in social entrepreneurship, where individuals face numerous challenges that require them to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. By evaluating their coping potential, individuals can determine whether they have the requisite skills and resources to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour effectively. This evaluation can motivate them to work hard for their entrepreneurial goals and persevere through challenging times.

The third factor is knowledge and resources. Previous studies have shown that knowledge about start-ups and the ability to acquire resources can influence the successful management of a business (Elfving, 2015; Saeed et al., 2018). However, social entrepreneurship presents unique challenges, such as competition from larger enterprises, lack of technical knowledge and financial support (Vasconcellos et al., 2022). To overcome these challenges, social entrepreneurs need to obtain economic and social capital, philanthropic or governmental support, business partnerships and an asset base (Elkington and Hartigan, 2008; Viswanath and Reddy, 2023). It's challenging for social entrepreneurs to obtain the necessary resources, especially in the early stages. Therefore, individuals need to assess the availability of resources and their ability to cope with scarcity before venturing into social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs must also persuade consumers and attract investors, similar to commercial entrepreneurs (Viswanath and Reddy, 2023). In summary, social entrepreneurs need to have the necessary knowledge and resources while being aware of the unique challenges they face, such as a lack of resources and competition from larger enterprises.

The fourth factor involves the evaluation of normative importance, which is made up of two aspects – internal and external standards. These standards influence an individual’s decision-making process. Internal standards are related to an individual’s personal values and self-concept, while external standards are based on perceived social norms, moral rules and the expectations of family and friends. By shaping what is considered acceptable and desirable, personal values, beliefs and social norms can impact entrepreneurial behaviour (Chen et al., 2023). During the initial stages of entrepreneurship, family and peer support plays a crucial role in the decision-making process (Mei et al., 2022; Au et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2020; Yarwood, 2022; Zhu et al., 2017). Previous research has demonstrated that family support is essential for the career success of social entrepreneurs (Nawi et al., 2022; Viswanath and Reddy, 2023). Emotional and physical assistance, advice and motivation from family and friends can provide aspiring entrepreneurs with the resources they need to overcome challenges and maintain a work-life balance. Therefore, the normative significance factor is a critical component of entrepreneurial decision-making, with family and peer support being particularly significant during the early stages of entrepreneurship. Family and community recognition and appreciation, along with emotional and physical support, can help social entrepreneurs overcome challenges and establish a sense of purpose and belonging.

In the context of higher education students in India, the identification of factors such as relevance, coping potential, knowledge and resources and normative significance is significant. India’s higher education landscape is characterised by a diverse student population with varying socio-economic backgrounds, cultural perspectives and career aspirations. Social entrepreneurship emerges as a promising path for many students in India, offering a means to solve societal challenges and adhering to nation’s values of social responsibility and inclusive development. Therefore, the pleasantness and goal significance of pursuing a career in social entrepreneurship may resonate strongly with students who are motivated by the prospect of making a meaningful difference in their communities. However, the acceptability and viability of social entrepreneurship as a career choice may vary across different socio-cultural contexts within India. Factors such as societal expectations and perceived job security may influence students’ perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of pursuing a career in social entrepreneurship. Moreover, being in a transitional phase towards adulthood, students face specific challenges in control and adaptation, exacerbated by the unpredictable nature of social entrepreneurship. These include navigating resource limitations, market uncertainties and societal pushback, all while managing personal, academic and economic pressures. Besides, knowledge and access to resources are vital for students’ involvement in social entrepreneurship. Higher education institutions play a crucial role in equipping students with the necessary knowledge through specialised courses, workshops and experiential learning opportunities focused on social entrepreneurship. Additionally, access to resources such as funding, mentorship, networking opportunities and infrastructure are essential enablers for students to translate their entrepreneurial ideas into actionable ventures. However, the availability and accessibility of such resources may vary across different educational institutions and geographic regions within India, posing challenges for students, particularly those from underserved communities or non-business backgrounds. Therefore, addressing disparities in knowledge dissemination and resource allocation is critical for fostering an inclusive and supportive ecosystem for social entrepreneurship education and practice among higher education students in India. Furthermore, normative significance holds significance in Indian society, where familial expectations and social norms play crucial role in shaping individuals’ career decisions. Therefore, identifying and understanding these factors in the Indian higher education context provides valuable insights into the unique challenges faced by aspiring social entrepreneurs.

Together, the factors measured by the scale developed in this study are useful in guiding the development of targeted support mechanisms to foster a social entrepreneurial ecosystem in the country. By assessing students’ appraisals of challenges associated with pursuing a career in social entrepreneurship, the study has yielded valuable insights into the factors influencing students' career aspirations and readiness for social entrepreneurial endeavours. Through rigorous scale development procedures and empirical validation, the study has provided a nuanced understanding of the multidimensional nature of social entrepreneurial career decision-making, thereby filling a significant gap in the existing literature. Moving beyond theoretical frameworks, the study results offer practical implications and an outcome assessment tool for educators, policymakers and stakeholders seeking to nurture a conducive environment for social entrepreneurship education and practice among higher education students.

Implications

This study adds to the growing literature on entrepreneurial cognition and decision-making. This study makes several unique contributions that set it apart from existing research. Firstly, it focuses specifically on social entrepreneurship, an area that is still emerging in the field of entrepreneurship research. Secondly, the study has developed a scale to measure how individuals cognitively appraise social entrepreneurship as a career choice, enabling future quantitative research in this area. This scale is based on the insights from the component process model for cognitive appraisal, drawn from general psychology literature and represents the first attempt to apply this model to social entrepreneurship research.

This study has practical implications for social entrepreneurship educators, and students engaged in career decision-making. Cognitive biases and emotional overreaction can lead to entrepreneurial failure. Social entrepreneurship is more challenging than commercial entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurial motivation and passion can also be more emotionally appealing, prompting individuals to pursue it without properly evaluating its costs and benefits. Thus educators should focus on enhancing the cognitive abilities of students who intend to be social entrepreneurs. This scale can be used to measure the patterns of students on each dimension of cognitive appraisal and develop a profile of their strengths and weaknesses. This would help students to develop an effective business plan and avoid venture failure. The scale could also be used as an assessment tool to measure the impact of such education programs. Vocational counsellors can use the findings of this research to assess and support students interested in pursuing social entrepreneurship by providing them with the necessary guidance and resources to make informed career decisions.

Previous research has demonstrated that teaching methods that focus on cognition are more effective for teaching entrepreneurship than those that rely solely on business plans (Mitchell et al., 2002). The findings of this research can be used to improve social entrepreneurship education programs by integrating cognitive training approaches. This approach can help students develop the cognitive skills necessary for effective problem-solving and recognising opportunities, which are essential for social entrepreneurs. By doing so, they will be better equipped to identify and address societal challenges and navigate career decision-making. To make the curriculum more effective, it is recommended to include practical learning opportunities, such as case studies and real-world problem-solving exercises. This study also emphasises the need for targeted support for students, particularly those who have a negative appraisal of perceived career challenges. Future research in social entrepreneurship can consider developing programs that provide guidance, mentorship and resources to assist students in overcoming the challenges and strengthening their intent to engage in social entrepreneurship.

Limitations and future research directions

This study responded to the call for empirical research on entrepreneurial cognition, how individuals perceive their external environment and how these perceptions influence their new-entry decision-making. However, this study aimed to develop a scale to measure individual perceptions through cognitive appraisal. Future studies could focus on using this scale to measure cognitive appraisal patterns and how they impact entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, this scale has been specifically developed to measure cognitive appraisal in the context of social entrepreneurship. Research on cognitive processes and appraisal in social entrepreneurship is relatively limited so this scale could be valuable for developing models and other quantitative studies. Studies can focus on identifying and assessing the dispositional factors that could foster positive coping in social entrepreneurship (Ukil and Jenkins, 2023). Developing strategies to overcome the perceived challenges and negative appraisal patterns is also a potential area for future research. Additionally, researchers could attempt to adapt this scale or its underlying dimensions to other types of entrepreneurship, allowing for comparisons of appraisal patterns across different entrepreneurial contexts and examining how perceived challenges vary based on the nature of the enterprise.

The study also has certain methodological limitations which can be addressed in future research to enhance the conclusiveness of results. Firstly, this study was conducted in India. Future studies can replicate the findings in other countries. Secondly, the use of purposive sampling, although necessary to target individuals with relevant backgrounds in social entrepreneurship or community development, may introduce selection bias and constrain the generalisability of our findings to broader populations. To overcome this, future studies can focus on expanding the studies to a more general population of students without experience in community development activities. Moreover, reliance on self-report measures in the data collection instruments may have caused response bias and social desirability effects, which can impact the validity of the results. Additionally, while PLS-SEM was chosen for its suitability with small sample sizes and non-normal data distributions, it is sensitive to model misspecification and may yield inflated goodness-of-fit statistics. In future, researchers could consider complementing PLS-SEM with other structural equation modelling techniques, such as covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), which offer formal hypothesis testing for model fit and more accurate parameter estimation, particularly in larger sample sizes and complex model structures. Finally, this study has adopted a cross-sectional design. Future researchers could use longitudinal designs to establish causal relationships between latent constructs. This would enhance the theoretical and practical utility of the scale.

Conclusion

According to Pech and Cameron (2006), individuals with an entrepreneurial mindset actively seek out patterns, including opportunities and challenges. They evaluate these patterns using various criteria to make informed decisions about pursuing an opportunity and starting a new venture. Social entrepreneurship is a complex activity influenced by individual, organisational and societal factors. Thus, potential social entrepreneurs appraise the perceived challenges of social entrepreneurship before making an informed decision for venture creation. This study aimed to develop and validate a social entrepreneurship career pursuit scale with the cognitive appraisal of perceived challenges as the lower-order constructs. The analysis resulted in a four-factor, 20-item scale. The scale developed in this study is the first tool designed to measure social entrepreneurial career pursuit using the framework of cognitive appraisal. As such, this scale has the potential to provide valuable insights into the decision-making processes involved in pursuing a career in social entrepreneurship.

Table 1.

Summary of item analysis

Items	Mean (SD)	ITC	rpb
1*	3.65 (0.94)	0.4	0.45
2*	3.19 (0.93)	0.39	0.43
3*	3.07 (0.84)	0.37	0.42
4*	3.32 (1.00)	0.4	0.45
5	2.96 (1.04)	0.02	0.09
6	2.92 (1.08)	−0.11	−0.04
7	3.36 (0.99)	0.23	0.29
8*	3.25 (0.98)	0.5	0.54
9*	3.51 (1.03)	0.56	0.61
10*	2.9 (1.11)	0.45	0.51
11	2.89 (1.09)	−0.1	−0.03
12*	3.16 (0.93)	0.51	0.55
13*	3.36 (0.87)	0.55	0.58
14*	3.4 (0.94)	0.54	0.58
15*	3.35 (0.98)	0.55	0.59
16*	3.08 (1.03)	0.4	0.45
17	3.12 (1.04)	−0.3	−0.24
18	3.05 (1.08)	0.29	0.35
19	2.53 (1.14)	−0.17	−0.1
20*	2.76 (1.10)	0.39	0.44
21*	3.16 (0.91)	0.55	0.59
22*	3.25 (1.09)	0.58	0.63
23*	3.4 (1.02)	0.53	0.58
24*	3.23 (1.00)	0.57	0.61
25*	3.22 (1.12)	0.61	0.65
26	3.12 (1.13)	−0.03	0.04
27	3.13 (1.06)	0.27	0.33
28*	3.06 (0.97)	0.49	0.54
29	2.82 (1.01)	0	0.06
30	3.35 (1.04)	0.35	0.41
31*	3.27 (1.05)	0.42	0.47
32*	3.19 (1.04)	0.37	0.43
33	2.85 (1.07)	0.35	0.4
34*	2.85 (0.98)	0.45	0.5
35*	3.08 (1.08)	0.43	0.48
36*	3.07 (1.06)	0.48	0.53
37*	3.58 (1.02)	0.41	0.46
38*	3.75 (1.02)	0.39	0.44
39	2.71 (0.99)	−0.16	−0.1
40*	3.75 (1.01)	0.43	0.48
41*	3.82 (0.97)	0.4	0.451

Notes:

M = mean; SD = standard deviation; ITC = item-total correlation; r_pb = point biserial correlation; *Retained items

Source: Table by authors

Table 2.

Factor loading of scale items

Items	Factor loadings
SECD1	0.622
SECD2	0.758
SECD3	0.672
SECD4	0.58
SECD5	0.532
SECD6	0.681
SECD7	0.573
SECD8	0.624
SECD9	0.506
SECD10	0.614
SECD11	0.602
SECD12	0.584
SECD13	0.687
SECD14	0.622
SECD15	0.638
SECD16	0.75
SECD17	0.553
SECD18	0.722
SECD19	0.5
SECD20	0.733
SECD21	0.749
SECD22	0.745

Source: Table by authors

Table 3.

Standardised loadings of the measurement model

Items	Factors	Loadings
1*	←RL	0.7
2*	←RL	0.82
3*	←RL	0.74
4*	←RL	0.62
5	←RL	0.58
6*	←RL	0.62
7*	←RL	0.74
8*	←RL	0.72
9*	←RL	0.63
10	←RL	0.59
11*	←CP	0.68
12*	←CP	0.76
13*	←CP	0.7
14*	←CP	0.75
15*	←KR	0.79
16*	←KR	0.64
17*	←KR	0.73
18*	←KR	0.69
19*	←NS	0.77
20*	←NS	0.84
21*	←NS	0.87
22*	←NS	0.78

Notes: RL = relevance; CP = coping potential; KR = knowledge and resources; NS = normative significance; *Retained items

Source: Table by authors

Table 4.

Final scale with indicators and explanations

Items	Indicators	Explanations
Being a social entrepreneur will be a pleasant experience for me	Relevance	Measures the respondent’s expectation that engaging in social entrepreneurship will result in personal satisfaction, enjoyment and fulfilment
I can easily become a social entrepreneur as I am familiar of different social problems	Relevance	Measures the respondent's perception of the relevance of social entrepreneurship to their existing knowledge and understanding of social issues
I'm familiar with the need and market structure of the social venture	Relevance	Measures respondent's awareness of the relevance and potential impact of social entrepreneurship initiatives
I'm willing to launch a social enterprise as I can wait till people accept my decision and intention	Relevance	Measures respondent's willingness to launch a social enterprise, considering their readiness to patiently await acceptance and support from others
I wanted to become an entrepreneur since childhood, and my personal experiences made me interested in social entrepreneurship	Relevance	Measures respondent's lifelong aspiration to become an entrepreneur and the influence of personal experiences on developing an interest in social entrepreneurship
I'm confident that my social enterprise will be sustainable in the market	Relevance	Measures respondent's confidence in the long-term viability and sustainability of their social enterprise within the market
I'm confident that my social enterprise will be profitable in the market	Relevance	Measures respondent's confidence in the financial viability and profitability of their social enterprise within the market
I'm confident that the social problem I recognised could be a viable venture idea in the market	Relevance	Measures respondent's confidence in the potential viability of their identified social problem as a feasible venture idea within the market
I’ll be able to control any challenges if I begin a social enterprise	Coping potential	Measures respondent's confidence in their ability to effectively manage and overcome challenges that may arise upon starting a social enterprise
I'll be able to manage the legal aspects of my social enterprise	Coping potential	Measures respondent's confidence in their ability to effectively navigate and address the legal requirements and obligations associated with operating a social enterprise
If I begin a social enterprise, I can adjust to the challenges even if I lack adequate resources	Coping potential	Measures respondent's confidence in their capacity to creatively problem-solve, innovate and leverage available resources effectively to address obstacles and sustain their social enterprise
I'm strongly intended to become a social entrepreneur and thus am ready to face the consequences	Coping potential	Measures respondent's level of commitment and readiness to pursue a career in social entrepreneurship, acknowledging their willingness to confront potential challenges and risks associated with entrepreneurial activities
If I begin a social enterprise, I’ll be able to acquire the necessary resources	Knowledge and resources	Measures respondent's belief in their capacity to identify, and access the resources necessary to support the establishment and growth of their venture
I know how to build a proper hybrid model for my social enterprise to meet its requirements	Knowledge and resources	Measures respondent's confidence in their ability to design and implement a hybrid business model that effectively integrates social and financial goals to meet the requirements of their social enterprise
I know how to manage various aspects of the business (marketing, branding, accounting etc.)	Knowledge and resources	Measures respondent's knowledge, skills and expertise in various business domains, demonstrating proficiency in key areas necessary for the successful operation of a social enterprise
I know how to create a brand for my social enterprise even if there's heavy competition in the market	Knowledge and resources	Measures respondent's confidence in their ability to develop a distinctive brand identity for their social enterprise, despite significant competition in the marketplace
Becoming a social entrepreneur will increase my self-concept and values	Normative significance	Measures anticipation of personal growth and development through their entrepreneurial endeavours, including a deeper understanding of their strengths, values and purpose
My parents will support me if I become a social entrepreneur	Normative significance	Measures expectation of familial encouragement in their entrepreneurial journey
My family will feel proud if I become a social entrepreneur	Normative significance	Measures anticipation of familial pride and validation, suggesting the importance of familial approval in their entrepreneurial journey
My friends will encourage and support me if I become a social entrepreneur	Normative significance	Measures respondent’s expectations of peer validation indicating the importance of friendship networks in their entrepreneurial journey

Source: Table by authors

Table 5.

Multicollinearity (VIF) statistics

Items	VIF
1	1.23
2	1.3
3	1.19
4	1.25
5	1.31
6	1.88
7	1.73
8	1.24
9	1.25
10	1.6
11	1.42
12	1.55
13	1.31
14	1.23
15	1.37
16	1.25
17	1.49
18	2.01
19	2.4
20	1.75

Source: Table by authors

Table 6.

Correlation matrix

Factors	CR	AVE	RL	CP	KR	NS
RL	0.71	0.51	0.702
CP	0.77	0.514	0.58	0.72
KR	0.84	0.67	0.36	0.57	0.71
NS	0.74	0.51	0.32	0.43	0.54	0.82

Notes: RL = relevance; CP = coping potential; KR = knowledge and resources; NS = normative significance

Source: Table by authors

Table 7.

HTMT ratios

Factors	RL	CP	KR	NS
RL
CP	0.76
KR	0.51	0.74
NS	0.41	0.54	0.702

Source: Table by authors

Table 8.

Square root of AVE within and between the SECD and SESE scales

Factors	SECD	SESE
SECD	0.53
SESE	0.53	0.63

Notes: SECD = social entrepreneurial career decision; SESE = social entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Source: Table by authors

Table 9.

Model fit index

Model	SRMR
Four-factor model	0.08

Source: Table by authors